|
Post by tkdco2 on Sept 16, 2021 17:09:01 GMT -6
Questing Beast has made a new video about an alternative to hit points as presented in D&D. He uses 5e as an example, but this can work for older editions as well. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qju_l8XlzAs
|
|
|
Post by simrion on Sept 17, 2021 3:44:44 GMT -6
Personally I don't think HP need fixing. Rather player/DM mindsets need changing. HP have always been described as an abstract way of tracking a character's/Monster's capability to continue operating under adverse (combat?) conditions. over time we've simply defaulted to thinking of it as simple life essence when in reality it has been a combination of life essence/fatigue/luck etc. Of course the power creep through the years with new iterations of the rules have exacerbated the whole hit point misconception.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 17, 2021 6:54:38 GMT -6
I'm with simrion in theory, but for some reason most players and DMs cannot come to terms with that. I understand why, as the game itself is confused about HP in the ways rules are applied to it (e.g. Ben's pit of lava example) Really, HP and Saving Throws are the same thing, and therein lies the problem- These should have been rolled in together (combined, not a dice roll) somehow from the get-go. I saw QB's video yesterday- These types of systems have been around much longer than the OSR* Hello ....Palladium Fantasy 2E and RIFTS (SDC and HP)! Vitality and Wound Points in D20 Star Wars. Even the newest FFG Star Wars has a sort of similar mechanical split. I'm sure there are other old games I have forgotten about that utilize something similar. I generally find these systems more trouble than they are worth unless you are never tracking too many points in total (which is where the FFG system works well). The best solution is keeping numbers low- The older I get the more I like Hargrave's Vol III hit point system. At first level You get your CON score, a D whatever roll for your Class, and then a point or two every level. That's it. Actually I take it back- The best solution is to play Runequest. Models exactly what they want to model. And if you want "heroic" or "high action" Runequest (i.e. characters who can take a bit more abuse) you don't average the CON and SIZ scores- just add them together. You will still get thrashed probably, but characters are a bit more hardy, and your HP score is never likely to go up. *I believe that QB is a younger guy who may have started in the 3E era or later so I can cut him some slack
|
|
|
Post by Mordorandor on Sept 18, 2021 18:58:20 GMT -6
Call them Luck Points. Hits convey bad luck. When characters accrue as many points of bad luck as their maximum possible Luck, their Luck has run out. Better luck next time. (Your conceptual terminology may vary, of course.)
Which brings up a point … I play that HP accrue. Once a character accrues maximum possible HP, the character dies. There are no negative HP, if you will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2021 21:25:28 GMT -6
Personally I don't think HP need fixing. Rather player/DM mindsets need changing. HP have always been described as an abstract way of tracking a character's/Monster's capability to continue operating under adverse (combat?) conditions. over time we've simply defaulted to thinking of it as simple life essence when in reality it has been a combination of life essence/fatigue/luck etc. Of course the power creep through the years with new iterations of the rules have exacerbated the whole hit point misconception. IMO nothing wrong with HPs or Saving Throws, they are just fine the way they are. That power creep is insane though. I just learned that 5E gives unlimited cantrips to mages and that means unlimited fire bolts starting at 2d6 (or was it 2d8?). It is supposed to be equivalent to a mage throwing darts, except a mage can not carry around an infinite supply of darts. At least this is the way it was presented to me. Power creep is why I've no interest in later versions. Not sure why people have trouble with thinking of HPs as an abstraction? How do you play D&D in the first place is you have trouble with abstractions?
|
|
|
Post by delta on Sept 18, 2021 21:37:18 GMT -6
The best solution is keeping numbers low- +1 for this. It's the solution to so many things.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Sept 18, 2021 22:56:28 GMT -6
The best solution is keeping numbers low- Yep. Players should always feel their character is in mortal danger.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 18, 2021 22:59:10 GMT -6
IMO nothing wrong with HPs or Saving Throws, they are just fine the way they are. That power creep is insane though. I just learned that 5E gives unlimited cantrips to mages and that means unlimited fire bolts starting at 2d6 (or was it 2d8?). It is supposed to be equivalent to a mage throwing darts, except a mage can not carry around an infinite supply of darts. At least this is the way it was presented to me. Power creep is why I've no interest in later versions. A fire bolt is 1d10, as compared to darts which would do 1d4 + Dexterity modifier. The cantrip is a tiny bit better for your typical mage who won't have a Dexterity bonus of +3 or higher, but a high-Dexterity thrower will have an edge over the fire bolt. Though really the more apt weapon to compare it to would be a light crossbow, which was the default "mage backup weapon" in 3rd edition - in which case you're talking about 1d8 + Dexterity bonus rather than a dart's 1d4, as well as a range long enough that you won't have to worry about long range penalties in most circumstances. Also note that monsters receive the same benefits - a goblin deals 1d6+2 damage instead of a bare 1d6, for example. Monster hit points are also roughly double the amount they had in 1E. Kobolds have 2d4 hit points, goblins have 2d6 hit points, and hobgoblins have 2d8+2 hit points, for example. So in practice it's not really power creep; if Adam Ye Olde Fighting-Man fights a round of melee with a goblin, dealing it 3 damage out of its 4 HP and receiving back from it 2 damage out of Adam's 6 HP, that's mathematically equivalent to Bob The New-Fangled Fighter against a new, improved goblin dishing out 6 damage against the goblin's 8 HP and suffering a hit for 4 damage out of his 12 HP maximum. The main issue that you will run into is degradation of challenge; published adventures and encounter tables and whatnot just have fewer monsters in them than the old stuff. Fighting 12 goblins in 5E would be just as dangerous as in any older edition of your choice - possibly more so, since 5E significantly weakened the Sleep spell so that on average it will only disable 3 of those goblins - but nowadays you'll rarely see a dungeon have more than 6 monsters in one place, with 4 or 5 being most typical. That being said, 5E does have some major faults at high levels, where hit points keep increasing on both the PC and monster sides and outpace damage. That "double hit points vs. 1E" rule of thumb that I mentioned before only applies for low level monsters; high level monsters have much, much more. Combat really becomes a slog starting around 9th or 10th level unless the DM deliberately avoids the high-level creatures and instead uses increasing quantities of weaker enemies.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 18, 2021 23:08:24 GMT -6
That being said, 5E does have some major faults at high levels, where hit points keep increasing on both the PC and monster sides and outpace damage. That "double hit points vs. 1E" rule of thumb that I mentioned before only applies for low level monsters; high level monsters have much, much more. Combat really becomes a slog starting around 9th or 10th level unless the DM deliberately avoids the high-level creatures and instead uses increasing quantities of weaker enemies. My first D&D (AD&D, actually) character was an illusionist. I rolled a 4 for Constitution, meaning it was the only class I was allowed to enter. I then proceeded to roll a d4 for hit points. The die landed on 1. Obviously, illusionist didn't last long. He fell down a slide to a lower level of the dungeon where he was eaten by a mimic pretending to be a wardrobe (which I was convinced would lead to Narnia). I had a total blast! I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a 5e character with only 2 hit points. Even most wizards have 7 or 8 - sometimes more. So I'm not sure the "double hit points vs. 1E" rule holds true, even at low levels.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 18, 2021 23:48:47 GMT -6
That being said, 5E does have some major faults at high levels, where hit points keep increasing on both the PC and monster sides and outpace damage. That "double hit points vs. 1E" rule of thumb that I mentioned before only applies for low level monsters; high level monsters have much, much more. Combat really becomes a slog starting around 9th or 10th level unless the DM deliberately avoids the high-level creatures and instead uses increasing quantities of weaker enemies. My first D&D (AD&D, actually) character was an illusionist. I rolled a 4 for Constitution, meaning it was the only class I was allowed to enter. I then proceeded to roll a d4 for hit points. The die landed on 1. Obviously, illusionist didn't last long. He fell down a slide to a lower level of the dungeon where he was eaten by a mimic pretending to be a wardrobe (which I was convinced would lead to Narnia). I had a total blast! I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a 5e character with only 2 hit points. Even most wizards have 7 or 8 - sometimes more. So I'm not sure the "double hit points vs. 1E" rule holds true, even at low levels. Well YMMV, but I've never seen an AD&D character with 1 hit point. Everyone I know either allowed 1s to be rerolled, used the minimum starting hit points at 1st level chart from Unearthed Arcana, or just gave the maximum value for the first hit die. If pre-generated characters were being used, they always had hit points on the higher end. No one I've played with would ever consider putting a 4 in Constitution, either. On the rare occasion that someone got a score that bad, it inevitably got put into Wisdom, Charisma, or Strength (for a mage). The lowest anyone ever started with in all my time was 3 hit points. By default, 5E gives you the maximum roll at 1st level; depending on Constitution a starting wizard can have between 5 and 9 hit points, with 7 or 8 being most typical as you mentioned. The wizard is also one extreme of the scale. The double rule of thumb is most accurate for clerics and fighters, whereas 5E barbarians are actually likely to have less than double the HP of their 1E counterparts.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 19, 2021 1:37:29 GMT -6
Well YMMV, but I've never seen an AD&D character with 1 hit point. Everyone I know either allowed 1s to be rerolled, used the minimum starting hit points at 1st level chart from Unearthed Arcana, or just gave the maximum value for the first hit die. If pre-generated characters were being used, they always had hit points on the higher end. No one I've played with would ever consider putting a 4 in Constitution, either. On the rare occasion that someone got a score that bad, it inevitably got put into Wisdom, Charisma, or Strength (for a mage). The lowest anyone ever started with in all my time was 3 hit points. By default, 5E gives you the maximum roll at 1st level; depending on Constitution a starting wizard can have between 5 and 9 hit points, with 7 or 8 being most typical as you mentioned. The wizard is also one extreme of the scale. The double rule of thumb is most accurate for clerics and fighters, whereas 5E barbarians are actually likely to have less than double the HP of their 1E counterparts. Well, I was 9 years old. I thought having a low Constitution would mean getting sick all the time. And in my mind, getting sick was awesome, because it meant staying home from school (FREEDOM!). To be fair, even if I had rolled a 4, my hit points would still have been 1 due to my low guy's Constitution. I think I also put my highest score in Charisma. Because who wants to be ugly? I don't remember much more than that. To be honest, I don't think having a weak character impacted my enjoyment of the game at all. I've never seen the appeal of heroic escapism. I'd rather have the odds stacked against me just to climb a cavern wall. I've always enjoyed situations where failure is the default assumption. In both games and real life.
|
|
tedopon
Newly-Registered User
Posts: 86
|
Post by tedopon on Sept 19, 2021 12:29:42 GMT -6
I played a character with 1hp at first level and he was a split class elf F/MU. Rolled a 1 on both dice. I played him just to see if I could get him to survive and I did (literally everyone at the table was asking me to reroll), campaign ended around level 5 and he always had lower HP than everyone else, but he made it through. This was in 2e and we were using negative 10 for Death, so he got knocked out several times but survived it. Also had a wizard with 2 STR in a different game. Could basically wear clothes and carry a couple scrolls. Stuck close to another character who carried my spellbook and wands strapped to his belt and pack. He made it to level 5 or 6 before dying in a terrible PvP accident. I have always loved playing Crib Death characters, many more have died than survived, but I like the challenge of a character that looks hopeless. If s/he dies, just make a new one, if s/he doesn't Big Win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2021 16:33:21 GMT -6
IMO nothing wrong with HPs or Saving Throws, they are just fine the way they are. That power creep is insane though. I just learned that 5E gives unlimited cantrips to mages and that means unlimited fire bolts starting at 2d6 (or was it 2d8?). It is supposed to be equivalent to a mage throwing darts, except a mage can not carry around an infinite supply of darts. At least this is the way it was presented to me. Power creep is why I've no interest in later versions. A fire bolt is 1d10, as compared to darts which would do 1d4 + Dexterity modifier. The cantrip is a tiny bit better for your typical mage who won't have a Dexterity bonus of +3 or higher, but a high-Dexterity thrower will have an edge over the fire bolt. Though really the more apt weapon to compare it to would be a light crossbow, which was the default "mage backup weapon" in 3rd edition - in which case you're talking about 1d8 + Dexterity bonus rather than a dart's 1d4, as well as a range long enough that you won't have to worry about long range penalties in most circumstances. So you don't think there is anything odd about unlimited offensive spells for a 1st level mage? Seems to me, instead of mages being dominant at high level, they were just made dominant from day one. They would not have unlimited darts to throw, so the fire bolt is not comparable to throwing darts - unlimited versus a few. Besides which the mage has a much higher chance of hitting with a fire bolt than they would with a dart. From what I can tell, 5E seriously nerfed fighters vs spell casters.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Sept 19, 2021 17:06:01 GMT -6
I don't care for the unlimited firepower option either. It may have started with 4e. I don't mind allowing a couple of cantrips at first level, but minor magics should be more utilitarian and less combat-oriented.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 19, 2021 17:58:49 GMT -6
I don't care for the unlimited firepower option either. It may have started with 4e. I don't mind allowing a couple of cantrips at first level, but minor magics should be more utilitarian and less combat-oriented. I'm guessing it did start in 4E with Magic Missile which was an at-will power. Cantrips in 4E were not damage spells, they were things like Ghost Sound, prestidigitation, etc. But Magic Missile in 4E just a handful of HP Damage in 4Es vastly larger HP scaling compared to all the other editions. In 4E core Magic Missile requires an attack roll and does 2d4 + INT mod damage. At level 21 it went up to 4d4+ INT mod. In 4E Essentials its even less, but *is* an auto hit- 2HP + INT mod damage. At 11th level its 3HP+INT mod and at 21st level its 5HP+INT mod And you only get ONE missile. No extras as you level up. Now consider that a Level 1 Goblin in 4E has around 29-30 HP. And a 3rd level Goblin Spellcaster has around 45. IOW- It's not terribly powerful at all, even if you can throw it every round. And most of the previous edition problematic spells were throttled back or eliminated and other classes were well balanced against casters from Level 1 and beyond. 4E is it's own animal and trying to compare numbers to previous editions or 5E just doesn't work. It was designed specifically to "fix" historically problematic areas in D&D, and if those mechanics could not be "fixed" they were removed or replaced with an entirely new system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2021 19:09:34 GMT -6
There are Cantrips in Unearthed Arcana (AD&D 1e) and Dragon Magazine.
I can't really see the problem about "unlimited" spells specially considering the ultra high-fantasy that most (generic fantasy) games do are anyway.
In OD&D we had 1d6 damage for all classes, what really is the difference in allowing a Magic-User throw fire from hands instead of using darts if the damage is the same? Why ruin the character flavour and the player fun because of... nothing?
You can just say that "cantrips" have the same range than darts/crossbow/whatever the MU would use, you can say that the "fire"/ice/whatever can't count as "elemental damage" if that would ever matter in-game, and you can say that the damage would be the same damage than the dart/sling/crossbow/whatever if you're not using fixed 1d6 damage. There is no real mechanic advantage, and even if the elemental damage was supposedly an advantage if allowed in this way in some situations, you would suffer from eventual disadvantages as well just like you do when using the wrong weapon in the wrong situation. You probably can't cut a three using a sword, and your mini fireball would not be capable of perforation as a crossbow bolt would.
Particularly, I don't even care about damage fluctuation, 1d4 damage vs 1d6 damage isn't a big deal at least in my opinion, I respect the way everyone run their games but I really could never understand this kind of artificial limitations.
I still remember a Fighter of mine that I envisioned as a Spear user, and I asked if I could have "Reach" (add 5 feet in range for your attack) when using my Spear with both hands instead of "versatile" (damage is 1d8 instead of 1d6 when used with both hands), because... That's the whole point of a Spear! DM didn't allowed because in that particular game (5e) there was no such a weapon (Spear with "Reach" attribute) in the weapons list. hahaha
You completely destroy the flavor of the character for absolutely nothing, I had to either not have range with a Spear (what kind of a Spear is this?) or use a Halberd, Glaive or something else instead. I can't see how a situation like this is differente than disallowing a MU/Sorcerer of using a different effect for his attack with no apparent mechanical advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 19, 2021 19:12:50 GMT -6
A fire bolt is 1d10, as compared to darts which would do 1d4 + Dexterity modifier. The cantrip is a tiny bit better for your typical mage who won't have a Dexterity bonus of +3 or higher, but a high-Dexterity thrower will have an edge over the fire bolt. Though really the more apt weapon to compare it to would be a light crossbow, which was the default "mage backup weapon" in 3rd edition - in which case you're talking about 1d8 + Dexterity bonus rather than a dart's 1d4, as well as a range long enough that you won't have to worry about long range penalties in most circumstances. So you don't think there is anything odd about unlimited offensive spells for a 1st level mage? Seems to me, instead of mages being dominant at high level, they were just made dominant from day one. They would not have unlimited darts to throw, so the fire bolt is not comparable to throwing darts - unlimited versus a few. Besides which the mage has a much higher chance of hitting with a fire bolt than they would with a dart. From what I can tell, 5E seriously nerfed fighters vs spell casters. As I said, the fire bolt is comparable to a light crossbow - which would be the default choice in the absence of cantrips. There's a few nuances, the fire bolt has a slightly better chance to hit, but deals slightly less damage since it doesn't add Dexterity modifier like the crossbow does, and I've never seen anyone actually go through all the arrows/bolts they bring so I don't see ammunition as a salient point. For a wizard with 14 Dexterity and 16 Intelligence - pretty normal stats using the 5E standard array - the comparison is as follows. Light crossbow: +4 to hit, 1d8+2 damage, Range 80' (short) / 320' (long) Fire bolt: +5 to hit, 1d10 damage, Range 120' (short) / no extended range Meanwhile, a fighter with 16 Strength or Dexterity and the appropriate fighting style: Heavy crossbow: +7 to hit, 1d10+3 damage, Range 100' (short) / 400' (long) Longsword/rapier: +5 to hit, 1d8+5 damage Two-handed sword: +5 to hit, 2d6+3 damage (reroll 1s on the damage dice) Fighters get all kinds of bells and whistles, too - a once per short rest self-heal that only takes a bonus action, a once per short rest ability to take a second action in a turn, several things based on their chosen archetype (too varied to describe, but the one that's considered underpowered and simplistic, suitable for very young or very new players, gives a second fighting style bonus and critical hits on 19s as well as 20s), plus more opportunities than any other class to boost ability scores and/or take feats. By 6th level, a human fighter can have 20 Strength (or Dexterity) plus one of the "powerhouse" weapon feats like Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter. Getting a full second attack at 5th level and a third attack at 11th level is also a key point. In terms of all the special stuff and miscellaneous bonuses, I think the most apt comparison for 5E fighters is the 1E Oriental Adventures fighter classes, the Bushi, Samurai, and Kensai. Note that despite all this "kewl" stuff, the monsters still aren't comparatively weaker than in 1E, as monster HP starts to escalate - a 5E goblin may have double the hit points of its 1E counterpart, but an ogre or hill giant has triple, and a balor has six times as many! As you'll see in the next section, this actually hurts wizards more than it hurts fighters, since most spells don't even deal double the damage of their 1E counterparts at base level, and quickly fall behind due to lack of scaling with caster level. Also the wizard's per-day spells of 1st level and higher, most of the classic go-to spells are nerfed. Some examples: Sleep: Instead of affecting 2-16 hit dice of enemies (OD&D) or 2d4 hit dice of enemies (1E), it now affects 5d8 hit points of enemies - with enemy hit points double what they used to be, this averages only 4 kobolds, 3 goblins, or 2 hobgoblins Magic Missile: It receives a buff in the beginning, three missiles instead of one. However, since monster hit points are double what they used to be, 3d4+3 isn't nearly so impressive, you need to use all three to have a good chance of taking down a single hobgoblin. The big nerf - and this will be a theme with many spells - is that it does not get more powerful based on caster level. No extra missiles at 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc. levels, you always get just the three missiles unless you give up one of your higher level spell slots to "upcast" it. Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Blur, Web, Hold Person, Haste, Slow, Stoneskin, Levitate, Invisibility, Fly, Polymorph Other - These and countless other classic spells all require concentration in 5E. A wizard can only keep one concentration spell active at a time. In addition, the vast majority of debuff spells such as Hold Person and Slow allow victims who fail the initial saving throw to try again on successive rounds. Many also having reduced targeting capabilities; Hold Person only affects one person, as does Haste. Duration is also reduced for many spells, for example Fly only lasts 10 minutes flat rather than a number of 10-minute turns equal to 1d6 + caster's level, and Polymorph Other has a maximum duration of 1 hour. Oh, and while 5E doesn't have spell interruption during casting (except via Counterspell), all of these spells which require concentration can be interrupted after they're cast - any time the wizard takes damage, it requires a saving throw or else the spell is cancelled, which is particularly dangerous when using Fly, and also extremely inconvenient for Stoneskin since it no longer totally negates attacks and instead reduces the damage by half. Fireball, Lightning Bolt: Base damage 8d6, so only about 50% better than in older editions despite hit points being doubled. As mentioned above, does not scale with caster level. The most damage you could possibly deal (by giving up your one and only 9th level spell slot in exchange for a stronger Fireball) is 14d6, whereas in 1E any 14th level wizard can throw as many as five 14d6 Fireballs per day if that's what he wants to use his 3rd level spells for - and the monsters he's throwing them at have far fewer hit points, to boot! Protection from Normal Missiles: Removed from the spell list, no longer exists Cloudkill: No automatic death to low-HD creatures, just 5d8 poison damage (save for half) to all in the area. Unless they're somehow restrained, there's no reason for them to take this damage more than once, so in most circumstances it's just inferior to Fireball - particularly since poison is the most heavily resisted/immune damage type in the entire Monster Manual. Above 10th level, the 5E wizard also starts to fall behind on total number of spells castable per day compared to his older-edition counterparts. They do still leave fighters in the dust at the highest levels, but it's much closer than it used to be. IMO, the only time fighters have been stronger was at the tail end of 2E, when they got a whole lot of new options and bonuses in the Combat & Tactics book, and the proliferation of extremely high Magic Resistance values on monsters severely cut into the viability of offensive spells. Meanwhile, wizards have gained a bit of robustness at low levels, but at a heavy cost; frankly, at low to mid levels, I find that clerics with certain domain choices (Light Domain being the classic example) can make better offensive spell casters than wizards, having access to the entire cleric spell list without worrying about spell books, better hit points and armor proficiency, and turning undead as a side bonus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2021 20:20:00 GMT -6
So you don't think there is anything odd about unlimited offensive spells for a 1st level mage? Seems to me, instead of mages being dominant at high level, they were just made dominant from day one. They would not have unlimited darts to throw, so the fire bolt is not comparable to throwing darts - unlimited versus a few. Besides which the mage has a much higher chance of hitting with a fire bolt than they would with a dart. From what I can tell, 5E seriously nerfed fighters vs spell casters. As I said, ... Thank you for explaining all the reasons to never try 5E.
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 19, 2021 20:36:12 GMT -6
Thank you for explaining all the reasons to never try 5E. Like I said, it turns into a slog at high levels and I absolutely do not recommend it past 7th level or so. But at 1st to 5th level, it's pretty much just "take AD&D and double all of the numbers on both sides, so everything looks bigger but really isn't." Wizard spells are probably the most obvious since you start out being able to cast two spells per day, plus unlimited cantrips, but if you look just beneath the surface you'll find that each of those two spells are only half as good as the AD&D mage's single spell, and the cantrips aren't really any better than pinging with a light crossbow.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Sept 20, 2021 0:56:25 GMT -6
I don't have a problem with D&D hit points, but the Traveller method is intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 20, 2021 10:59:45 GMT -6
Questing Beast has made a new video about an alternative to hit points as presented in D&D. He uses 5e as an example, but this can work for older editions as well. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qju_l8XlzAsIf you don't know the history of the game, then understanding hit points is going to a be a problem. But if even if folks get that they measure only combat endurance not actual injury. Even with that many still won't be satisfied. How D&D represents combat doesn't represent their mind eye's view of combat. The exact same reasons that propelled Runequest who was written and played by people who experienced combat in the Society of Creative Anachronisms. Along with a host of other RPGs that reflected the views of their authors.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 20, 2021 11:13:35 GMT -6
I'm with simrion in theory, but for some reason most players and DMs cannot come to terms with that. I understand why, as the game itself is confused about HP in the ways rules are applied to it (e.g. Ben's pit of lava example) Because most players in my experience equate a roll of the dice with a swing of a weapon, and the damage dealt the injury caused by that successful hit. That what D&D's abstraction is fighting. The truth is that characters/monsters with bags of hits points being whittled away round after round is a pretty useful and straightforward way of handling combat. Provided one keeps a handle on how hit points totals stack up compared to damage dealt as the character gain experience. So useful that it far outweighs the "huh?" reaction when one is trying to picture what just happened after a successful hit. One could try to fix hit points but what you get in the end is something like GURPS or Runequest. A skill based system where hit points represent the capacity to withstand injury and the hp totals are low compared to the damage dealt. That an experienced character has higher skills that allows them to avoid damage but only has a marginal improvement at best to actually take damage.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 20, 2021 11:33:29 GMT -6
I don't care for the unlimited firepower option either. It may have started with 4e. I don't mind allowing a couple of cantrips at first level, but minor magics should be more utilitarian and less combat-oriented. I created a "zap spell" for my MU characters decades ago which was a d6 damage and they had to roll to hit. Essentially, I had MU players stocking up on throwing daggers or bows and shooting from the back row all of the time. What the unlimited cantrip does is gets rid of the need for daggers or arrows and allows the MU to act more like a MU. The 5E fire bolts doing 1d10 damage seems large, but as others have noted it's all relative. When an orc or zombie has 20+ hit points, having a 1d10 damage cantrip isn't such a big deal. Where the cantrip starts to get wonky (IMO) is when damage doubles or more. I think around 5th level some spellcaster cantrips go to 2d10 and pretty soon the value of leveled spells becomes a lot less. In 5E I think the cantrip becomes the "currency" of magic, and I always build my spellcasters to have as many cantrips as possible and avoid using actual leveled spells until really needed. Of course, the net effect seems to be that at the end of an adventure I have more level slots then I have rounds to cast the spells, so maybe I'm too much of a spell hoarder in 5E. On the opposite end of the spectrum is my wife, who always runs out of spell slots early in an adventure and is sad to have to resort to cantrip casting. Can't please everyone. ;-) From an OD&D perspective, having an unlimited cantrip that does a d4 or d6 damage doesn't seem to unbalance much. Particularly when the MU has to roll to hit.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 20, 2021 12:48:38 GMT -6
How many hit points does average-joe barber have in 5e versus OD&D?
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 20, 2021 15:34:11 GMT -6
How many hit points does average-joe barber have in 5e versus OD&D? A commoner has 4 hp or 1d8. www.5esrd.com/gamemastering/monsters-foes/npc/npc-commoner/The thing is about 5e is that the power curve is similar to that OD&D but to get the variety they wanted they upped the hit points so that they have more ways of doing damage. This having run the same setting, the Majestic Wilderlands, with both. It not a matter of "Oh 5e is bad because they upped the hit points". It more of they upped the hit points, upped the ways one can do damage, kept a lid on bonuses so that low level character have chance of hitting high hit dice creatures and vice versa. The overall effect is that a 5e 10th level party is about as much danger from a horde of orcs as a 10th level party in OD&D is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2021 18:42:40 GMT -6
How many hit points does average-joe barber have in 5e versus OD&D? Not exactly and average-joe, but... Last time I've played 5e my HD 11 Fighter (in fact a multi-class Fighter 9, Cleric 1, Thief 1) had: 109 Hit Points. AC 21 (equivalent to AC -2 in OD&D) To Hit +9 without counting advantage which I had most of times (combat manoeuvres) Damage 1d8+1d6+5, at minimum, considering that at the 11th level I could attack three times per turn, so it normally was 3d8+1d6+15 not counting eventual crits. (The 1d6 was for sneak attack which only applies for the first attack) I could cure myself, both with Fighter feats and with Cleric spells as well, although I normally used to pick utility spells such as Faerie Fire. If I recall correctly, you could use Second Wind more than once per rest because of some feat, but it has been some years since I played this game so I don't remember all the details anymore. I had advantage most of time during battle due to my Fighter combat feats, since I could Shove creatures using my Shield with a roll of 1d20+13, which I rarely missed. (Shoving is an Athletics roll, I know, +13 is a lot, but you can achieve that easily just by following the rules) Once shoved the creature is prone giving the character advantage in attack and possibly bonus damage, which increased also my chances of critical damage for each of my three attacks per turn. Even before this level, around level 9 I think, I already soloed various "Boss" on the adventure being played (The Rise of the Tiamat) and I even soloed a Dragon, although I confess I don't know the Dragon's age. And I can say that the Referee wasn't easy on me/us, he abused freely of "Legendary Actions" and even gave additional legendary actions sometimes to some creatures. He is a very smart guy and carefully planned each combat and each movement in-game specially knowing that we wouldn't be merciful to the creatures as well. I confess that I carefully thought about this "build" and I pretty much broke the game, but this wasn't even my most broken character in 5e. Trust me. I had a level 3 Warlock which I would argue was potentially stronger than the level 11 guy here. So I don't agree with our buddy about the power curve of 5e being similar to OD&D. I never saw or heard of a character fighting alone against a Dragon in OD&D on level 9~11 and living to tell the tale, in fact I never saw a character living much at all. Maybe the power curve in my OD&D games are different? And so that's why I don't agree.
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 170
|
Post by aramis on Sept 20, 2021 20:07:30 GMT -6
How many hit points does average-joe barber have in 5e versus OD&D? based upon my read of 0E, 3.5 HP... Noting that most guards, bandits, etc are 1d6 HP. Berserkers get +1 5E, due to the templates, and a lack of the "Normal Man" concept, extrapolation needed, but bandits get 11 (2d8+2), berserkers 67 (9d8+27), commoners get 4 (1d8+0), Guard 11 (2d8+2)... So the 3 or 4 point barber is a 4 point commoner, or maybe a better template, as the GM sees fit.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Sept 20, 2021 23:51:52 GMT -6
Let's them compare an OD&D fighter and 5E fighter to the average barber from each system.
OD&D Fighter: 4.5 hit points OD&D Barber: 3.5 hit points
5e Fighter: 12 hit points 5e Barber: 4.5 hit points.
That's quite an extreme difference. Since an orc is compatible to a fighter in both system, it looks like even orcs (and probably all monsters) got a massive bump, as well.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 21, 2021 7:20:52 GMT -6
Let's them compare an OD&D fighter and 5E fighter to the average barber from each system. OD&D Fighter: 4.5 hit points OD&D Barber: 3.5 hit points 5e Fighter: 12 hit points 5e Barber: 4.5 hit points. That's quite an extreme difference. Since an orc is compatible to a fighter in both system, it looks like even orcs (and probably all monsters) got a massive bump, as well. First off a 1st Fighter in OD&D rolls their hit points and the default in 5e is that they get max hit points but only if they are a PC. It is a trivial change to say you get max hp in OD&D at 1st level or you need to roll your hit points at first level in 5e. But if we are going to white room this, let's white room this. So while working on my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I wanted to crunch various numbers to get into the ballpark of where I want things to be. So I created this www.batintheattic.com/dnd_combat/Which represents Alex and Brian whacking away at each other 10,000 times. So I went here to pick up typical 1st level fighter for D&D 5e. This will be Alex www.digitaldungeonmaster.com/fighter.htmlHere to get the orc Brian www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/orcAnd plugged in the numbers As you can see the advantage is to alex who wins 57.9% of the time. Then I plugged in OD&D numbers converting to ascending AC using AC 9 not 10 as the base. So first off Alex the fighter will have 1d6+1 hp at first level which is 3.5+1 = 4.5 rounded up to 5. Alex hits AC 9 for 10 so has +0 bonus to hit in an ascending AC. Alex rolls average for starting gold so starts out with Plate, Shield, and a Longsword (70 gp) for AC 2 or AC 17 (9-2+10) in a ascending AC system. As you can see on the monster attacking chart on page 20, Brian the orc will need a 17 to hit Alex. Brian the Orc has AC 6 which is AC 13 ascending (9-6+10). And again you can see on page 19 that Alex will need a 13 to hit AC 6. Brian the Orc HP is 3.5 rounded up to 4. As you can see that Alex the Fighter has even more of an advantage than in 5e winning 75.6% of the time. If you throw in Greyhawk and a 13 strength the +1 to hit will allow Alex to win 78.9% of the time. Go up to a 16 strength with a +1 to hit and +1 to damage then Alex will win 83.3% of the time. Finally lets drop Alex down to just Chain + Shield AC 4. Running the fights we find that Alex wins 66.1% of the time over Brian the Orc. So it looks to me that OD&D 3 LBBs and Greyhawk is the more generous system than 5e when it comes to fighters. But in reality with the different tactical option in D&D 5e, both for PCs and monsters I find it to be a wash in actual play. That over the long haul the power curve of 5e and the power curve of OD&D are fairly close. Both system have elements that if not kept a lid on will result in a campaign where the power curve diverges greatly. For example overly generous with magic items in OD&D. Or allowing the multi-classing option in D&D 5e.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2021 9:32:47 GMT -6
I don't care for the unlimited firepower option either. It may have started with 4e. I don't mind allowing a couple of cantrips at first level, but minor magics should be more utilitarian and less combat-oriented. From an OD&D perspective, having an unlimited cantrip that does a d4 or d6 damage doesn't seem to unbalance much. Particularly when the MU has to roll to hit. I guess one of the problems for me is that I have always had a problem with a mage having to roll to hit with a spell. Seems to me to be an odd thing.
|
|